The Instigator
CiRrO
Pro (for)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
artC
Con (against)
Winning
95 Points

A god exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,308 times Debate No: 4493
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (32)

 

CiRrO

Pro

Definitions:

A god: Some sort of supreme being, a metaphysical being.
Exists: In some sort of actuality.

Affirmative Burden: My burden as obvious from the resolve is the fact that A god exists, I don't have to prove a specific god.

I'll give con the first move, since I'm the one challenging. GL =)
artC

Con

I require that the definition of exists be modified for the purpose of this debate.

As it stands a god may exist in the mind of a clinically insane individual and be proof of the existence of a god.
Debate Round No. 1
CiRrO

Pro

No problem, I'll modify the definition.

Exists: To be extant. (Hmm, odd, I can find no adequate definitions of exist, so I guess this will do.)
Extant: See exist.

I guess I'll present my opening arguments for the sake of this is only 3 rounds.

Contentions:

I. Motion

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand.

II. Causation

n the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false.

Syllogism:

1) The Universe had a cause, i.e. The Big Bang
2) Every effect needed a cause
3) A Supreme Being was the catalyst of the big bang
===============================================================================
Thank you for accepting the debate.
artC

Con

1) The Universe had a cause, i.e. The Big Bang
2) Every effect needed a cause
3) A Supreme Being was the catalyst of the big bang
**************************

I apologize for the briefness of my reply but there is a major flaw in your reasoning, for if a supreme being were the catalyst of The Big Bang and creator of the universe, according to your reasoning, there would be a creator to the creator and hence a creator to that creator which created the creator of the universe.

It is flawed to use a line of reasoning to argue for the impossibility of the existence of one thing (the universe without a supreme being as it's creator) while arguing for the existence of another (the supreme being which created the universe) using that same line of reasoning.

I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 2
CiRrO

Pro

"I apologize for the briefness of my reply but there is a major flaw in your reasoning, for if a supreme being were the catalyst of The Big Bang and creator of the universe, according to your reasoning, there would be a creator to the creator and hence a creator to that creator which created the creator of the universe."

My Response: My opponent is very true when saying this. My opponent is being logical. However, there is a difference. We both agree that this "Supreme Being" is out of the physical world, i.e. metaphysical. Therefore, the laws in the natural world, i.e. Argument of Motion and Causation, don't apply. This is where my opponent makes a flaw. She is saying that the laws of the natural world are the same no matter what time/space or dimension. Let me go further. These natural laws, according to Thomas Aquinas (One of the founders of natural law theory), explain that the natural laws proceed from non-contingency. Non-contingency is a word meaning, no cause. Therefore, this "Supreme Being" is the only non-contingent being. The natural world, as we know, because of the big-bang is contingent. Thus, a non-contingent being, i.e. the necessary being, had to have started the 2 fundamental principals of natural law, i.e. Motion and causation.
===============================================================================

Extension: My opponent only attacks my syllogism rather then my contentions, this is fine, however, for the remaining rounds, I ask that my contentions be extended.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen
artC

Con

Firstly, my opponent and I do not agree that a "Supreme Being" is of the metaphysical world, mainly do to the fact that I do not concede to the existence of "Supreme Being". I also argue that the arguments of motion and causation apply due to the lack of any empirical evidence stating otherwise.

We may argue for The Big Bang Theory because it is sound to the scientific method, regardless of our ignorance of its motion. We may not assume the existence of a being which has no cause just because we do not know what the catalyst for what we know is.

Unfortunately the philosopher who's ideas my opponent is basing his argument on was a Catholic priest who dedicated a good majority of his life to proving the existence of god in various ways, including what he called the five proofs. None of which actually prove the existence of anything aside from ones belief in god.

The theory that there may exist an entity which is non-contingent has no basis. We may not assume that because there is a natural world and we are of it, and there are things outside of our understanding which we call supernatural, that the laws of the former do not apply to the latter.

Any idea of the workings of an entity that could have created the universe is mere speculation, the existence of a philosophy which dictates that the contingency of the natural world must depend on the non-contingency of anything is is not ample in providing any evidence of the existence of a god.

I argued my opponents syllogism because it was the only part of his argument to argue. I will not debate the laws of nature for I agree with them all.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
it's funny how people can argue for the existence of God using circular logic. The only reason anyone ever had to believe in God was that someone else told them to.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
"Superior" is a moral and aesthetic principle, not a physical one. That's why the ontological argument fails, because something being "wonderful" is a human, not a real, concept.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
I think that Con won the debate even though I agree with Pro and still do.
An important agument would be taht a God who created the laws of nature is superior to them and therefore does not have to follow them and is not explained by them.

A God who creates the laws of nature is obviously not explained by them.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
I like how pro based his argument on a circular definition and then denied the burden of proof because he believed in his proposition.

Fail.
Posted by surfride 8 years ago
surfride
actually, ciro, it is impossible to prove god with science, merely because part of science involves having results that can be falsified, and there has to be a means to test hypotheses. There is no means to prove the existence of a god with science, look at evolution for example. Many so-called "intelligent design" "scientists" will point to gaps in the fossil record and say that that point is where a miracle occurred. There is just no way to prove or disprove a miracle. That's an example that's not completely related to this topic, but it serves a point: that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to prove the existence of a god.
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
Thx for the tip, I'll read that specific argument.
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
Pro- You really haven't read much cosmology have you? Read a bit of Quenton Smith's Cosmology Arguments for a Self Caused Universe (it's a 2008 argument, shouldn't be too hard to find)

Good job, Con. You got my vote.
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
Well, seeing as though God is atemporal and aphysical, then laws of the NATURAL world do not apply. What you are saying is illogical. You are saying that everything is the same everywhere.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
It's low to just go to the old "the laws of the universe don't apply to God" argument. It's also illogical. Who said the laws of the universe don't apply to God? What proof do you have for that?
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
Hmm, I understand what your saying about the black and white fallacy. However, according to cosmology, it really is only either way. Either a god created/metaphysical being created it, or the universe created itself/or came from a pre-existing universe. And the 2nd way is, at this time, unprovable with science. Its easier to prove a gods existence with science more then the self creation or pre-existence. On the fact that then you come to the conclusion of infinite time.
32 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
CiRrOartCTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
CiRrOartCTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
CiRrOartCTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jdwooch 8 years ago
jdwooch
CiRrOartCTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Marader 8 years ago
Marader
CiRrOartCTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
CiRrOartCTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
CiRrOartCTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Paradox 8 years ago
Paradox
CiRrOartCTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
CiRrOartCTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by artC 8 years ago
artC
CiRrOartCTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07